Ark. Code Ann. § 28-48-206 (2026)
Increase or reduction in amount — Dispensing with bond
- The court may at any time increase or decrease the amount of the bond required of a personal representative when good cause appears.
- At its discretion and subject to subsequent revocation, the court may dispense with the requirement of a bond when, by the terms of the will, the testator directed or requested that no bond be required of the personal representative.
-
-
Except with respect to a nonresident administrator, the court, at its discretion and subject to subsequent revocation, may reduce the amount of bond which would otherwise be required or dispense with the requirement of a bond:
- If the personal representative is a bank or a trust company whose deposits are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or a trust company chartered and regulated by an appropriate state authority; or
- When all distributees are competent and have filed their written waiver of the requirement of bond, and the petition shall recite that there are no known unsecured claims.
- However, if any person asserting a claim against the estate or having or claiming any interest in the estate files a written demand, the personal representative shall give bond as required in § 28-48-201 or in such other amount as the court shall direct after considering the amount of the alleged claim or asserted interest, but, if it is shown to the court that the alleged claim is invalid or has been paid or that the person alleging the interest in the estate has, in fact, no interest therein, then bond shall not be required.
-
Except with respect to a nonresident administrator, the court, at its discretion and subject to subsequent revocation, may reduce the amount of bond which would otherwise be required or dispense with the requirement of a bond:
History. Acts 1949, No. 140, §§ 81, 88; 1951, No. 54, § 1; 1951, No. 255, § 6; 1961, No. 17, § 1; 1967, No. 287, § 7; 1975, No. 620, § 10; 1979, No. 384, § 1; A.S.A. 1947, §§ 62-2212, 62-2219; Acts 1999, No. 635, § 1.
Research References
Ark. L. Rev.
Probate Code Amendments, 5 Ark. L. Rev. 377.
Case Notes
Cause for Substitution of Sureties.
A probate court had no authority, on the application of a guardian, to substitute new bonds and sureties for old bonds and sureties theretofore approved and accepted by it, for reasons which were not provided by statute. White v. New Amsterdam Cas. Co., 195 Ark. 249, 111 S.W.2d 477 (1937) (decision under prior law).
Entry of Record.
Where the guardian and sureties were before the probate court and an order permitting substitution of surety, approving new bond, and releasing the sureties on the original bond was made by the court of its own motion, but not entered on the record, an order nunc pro tunc, directing that it be shown on the judgment record, was proper; but the order did not discharge the former sureties from liability that might have accrued prior to the order. Williams v. Goodwin, 200 Ark. 897, 141 S.W.2d 515 (1940) (decision under prior law).
Written Demand.
An order requiring a personal representative to secure a bond was proper and did not constitute a deprivation of due process where (1) the appellees complied with subsection (c)(2) by filing their written demand (i.e., their administrative claim) and petitioning the probate court for an order directing the estate's assets be returned or, alternatively, requiring the personal representative to secure a bond, (2) the petition was served upon the personal representative, and (3) the probate court held a hearing on the petition and granted the relief sought in the petition. Eddins v. Style Optics, Inc., 71 Ark. App. 102, 35 S.W.3d 315 (2000).